Category Archives: Patentability

DC ineligibility decision erroneous as claims not “solely directed to the printed matter”

C. R. Bard, et al. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1756, -1934 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1756.OPINION.11-10-2020_1683097.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, STOLL November 10, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC erroneously granted JMOL based on expert mistake and conclusion that printed matter made claims patent ineligible under section … Continue reading

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Revised FC opinion maintains invalidity of one independent claim as claiming a natural law and nothing more but vacates and remands DC invalidity decision regarding second independent claim as including “positioning” limitation”

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 (revised July 30, 2020) Update (July 30, 2020): Original FC opinion affirmed the DC decision that AA’s claims are ineligible … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

DC patent ineligibility holding for Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims again reversed

Illumina, Inc., Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1419 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA March 17, 2020 Update (August 3, 2020): In a revision of its March 17, 2020 opinion reversing the DC’s 101 ineligibility decision, the FC … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Patent ineligibility decision affirmed as claims “recite no technological solution”

Dropbox, Inc. et al. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1765, -1767, -1823 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES June 19, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC holdings of patent ineligibility affirmed as claims did not, e.g., “describe how to solve the problem in … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

Uniloc claim ineligible under § 101 as abstract, claim includes “no specific asserted improvements”

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2019-2048 MOORE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 13, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of patent ineligibility under § 101 affirmed (abstract idea since claim includes “no specific asserted improvements”). Summary: Uniloc appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

DC ineligibility decision reversed as claims are directed to a (“patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality”

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1835 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO April 30, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decision of patent ineligibility under § 101 for being abstract (Alice, step one) reversed and remanded … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

DC patent ineligibility holding for Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims reversed

Illumina, Inc., Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1419 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA March 17, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding that Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims are patent ineligible reversed. Summary: Illumina appealed DC decision finding certain claims … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of treatment claims eligible under 101 (DC reversed); DC obviousness findings affirmed

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Docket No. 2019-1172 DYK, MOORE, HUGHES March 16, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision of ineligibility under 101 for method of treatment claims reversed; invalidity for double-patenting and obviousness affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of manufacturing claims ineligible under § 101 since “the mechanism for achieving the desired result” involving a natural law “are not actually claimed”

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 Brief Summary: DC holding that AAM’s “method for manufacturing” claims are patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., “the mechanism … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of treatment claims patent ineligible under 101 for being “focused on screening for a natural law” (“the invention does not improve treatment…by taking advantage of the body’s natural process”)

INO Therapeutics LLC, et al. v. Praxair Distribution Inc., et al. Docket No. 2018-1019 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding that “method of treating patients” claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed as the claims are … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment